Stanley - Not Guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regardless of the verdict or his actions as being right or wrong, I'm curious as to why there is no consideration to the victims actions and why he and his group were there. I don't care about a persons ethnicity, sex, or any other protected grounds if their actions are criminal in nature.

Again, I'm not saying that it is the case here, but nothing despises me more than when race is brought into the equation as something having significant influence in the outcome of a trial - one way or the other. I'm not denying that this can happen because yes it can but why do people need to be so easily polarized over the 'race' card? Then we have the media sensationalize so many of these instances but people quickly lose sight of objectivity and facts.

Also, in this case, people need to remember that a finding of 'not guilty' does not equate to a situation where they are actually 'innocent' of what they were accused. Was the burden of proof reached, did reasonable doubt remain? Were Stanley's actions even 'criminal' in nature? Even if it can be proven that there were egregious injustices in the trial, does it automatically prove that Stanley was guilty or is it more of a flaw in the system? These are like ad hominem arguments and I'm frankly tired of it.
 
Hard to understand how people can have such forthright opinions when they weren't there, nor did they sit in court and hear all the details. If I'm not in possession of all the facts, I'm not really qualified to comment.
 
Hard to understand how people can have such forthright opinions when they weren't there, nor did they sit in court and hear all the details. If I'm not in possession of all the facts, I'm not really qualified to comment.
I am not expressing an opinion on the verdict- only on the accepted stated facts and on those stated facts something bad was going to happen to one side or the other. I don't think the situation would have changed for the better if the driver of the SUV had been White, Black, Asian or Polka dot. A very explosive, dangerous and fluid situation that nobody should find themselves in!!
 
Yes it seemed bad on the face of it. I was more referring to the polarisation in the community across SK. The FN immediately convinced he was shot because he was native, the non-indigenous community equally convinced he had it coming because they were from the rez, had a stolen vehicle and firearms.
 
Yes it seemed bad on the face of it. I was more referring to the polarisation in the community across SK. The FN immediately convinced he was shot because he was native, the non-indigenous community equally convinced he had it coming because they were from the rez, had a stolen vehicle and firearms.
Having lived in Sask for 2 periods for a total of 7 years-- polarization was/is certainly a problem. Culturally differences are huge and discrimination has been wide-spread-trying and investigating cases must be a nightmare!
 
Doesn't matter a damn about race-but when a bunch of drinking adults show up uninvited at an isolated farm with a weapon-try and steal a quad and smash into a parked car and the farmers wife and kids are involved-it's bound to end up badly for someone! Just Sayin!!
my thoughts exactly... it makes me mad when i hear about stuff like this, good people defending themselves against scum, then the scum gets all the (undeserved) sympathy

i mean for f-trucks sake, 5 guys come to my (or your?) house, drunk with a gun, start stealing stuff, trying to kill family by ramming into them... lets just say that i wouldnt try to kill you, but im going to keep shooting until your no longer a threat.:mad: doesnt matter what colour, race, religion, sex, what your favorite food is.....
 
When you threaten a person's family anything can happen. They had no good business on his property and the young man brought this on himself. He is more at fault than the farmer. They need to teach their kids that there are less dangerous and illegal things to do for entertainment.

And one can hope that once all the blustering and false indignation is over, a few will realize exactly that..

Now before any of you beak at me for that sentiment, realize I well know the reserve, who lives there, and who farms and ranches in the nearby vicinity.

Had that been me, and I was believing they just ran over my Lady with their vehicle....
Let's just say there might have been a serious lack of prosecution witnesses.
wink.gif


Still hoping it settles down for all in the surrounding areas...

Cheers,
Nog
 
Did the dead fellow knock on the door and politely ask for help or not? If one puts oneself in a situation where one can be shot or arrested or tased etc one has made a bad choice. I am not for or against the decision as i was not there. Just sayin.
 
I was back there working for two years. Rural crime is so rampant that farmer are carrying in the tractors and combines it’s a different world back there
 
You don’t always get the outcome you want with our Justice system. But it does work. This decision was in the hands of a jury. Often they reflect the views of the general populous. There are consequences to bad decisions. Sometimes people push people the wrong way and people react. You can always appeal. Which I’m certain Justin and the Justice Minister will push the Crown to do
 
MICHAEL PLAXTON
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED 1 HOUR AGOUPDATED FEBRUARY 11, 2018
Michael Plaxton is a professor of law at the University of Saskatchewan. He is the author of Implied Consent & Sexual Assault, and the forthcomingSovereignty, Restraint, & Guidance: Canadian Criminal Law in the 21st Century.

It's easy to explain why the jury acquitted Gerald Stanley of second-degree murder: It concluded that there was no intention to fire his weapon at the occupants inside the SUV. It is trickier to explain why it acquitted the defendant of manslaughter.

First, keep in mind that this was not a case in which the accused claimed that his finger "slipped" while brandishing a weapon in order to keep intruders at bay. At no point did the defence argue that he intentionally pointed his weapon at the youths in order to protect his family or his property. He was holding the gun at the pivotal moment, but in the (he argued, well-founded) belief that it was empty.


According to Mr. Stanley's testimony, he obtained the pistol because he was afraid that the intruders would attack his son, who had just smashed the windshield of the SUV with a hammer. He loaded it with three bullets – but at the time he wasn't sure if it was two or three. He then proceeded to fire two warning shots. He pulled the trigger a third time, but nothing happened. Mr. Stanley checked his pistol carefully, and concluded that the gun was empty. He then ran to the SUV, ostensibly because he was worried that his wife was injured. As he reached to turn off the ignition, the gun discharged, killing Colten Boushie.

The defence case turned on evidence of "hang fire" – a phenomenon in which there is a delay between the pulling of the trigger and the discharge. Without that evidence, it would have been all but impossible for the jury to find that Mr. Stanley's use of the firearm was anything other than careless. A conclusion that Mr. Stanley was waving around a gun that he had good reason to think might be loaded, would have been more than sufficient basis for a manslaughter conviction.


The evidence supporting the hang-fire theory was weak. It amounted to little more than anecdotal evidence to the effect that "hang fires happen." There was no statistical evidence on the incidence rate of hang fires, either among firearms generally or among the particular make and model of pistol used by the defendant. The Crown's firearms expert suggested that hang fires are rare and that such delays in firing are quite short – certainly, much shorter than Mr. Stanley's testimony would indicate.

With this in mind, it makes sense that the Crown, during closing arguments, strongly emphasized the flaws in the hang fire theory. The Crown suggested that Mr. Stanley's evidence was flatly inconsistent with that of expert testimony concerning how his pistol functions. More importantly, the Crown noted a possible inconsistency between Mr. Stanley's evidence and that of his son: whereas Mr. Stanley testified that he "ran" to the SUV to check on his wife, his son testified only that he walked. That doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it goes to just how much of a delay there was between the trigger-pull and the discharge. Clearly, the jury thought this was significant, since they specifically asked to hear the testimony of both Mr. Stanley and his son as to what happened after the warning shots were fired.

Ironically, though, the Crown may have pushed the jury into a corner. If the hang-fire theory was rejected, then Mr. Stanley's story was not just undermined on one discrete detail. It went to the heart of his account. Again, there was no evidence – even by the defence – that his finger simply "slipped." So how did the gun go off, if there was no hang fire? He must have pulled the trigger, which would suggest that the killing was intentional. So it may have seemed to the jury that rejecting the hang-fire theory required it either to convict on second-degree murder, or to acquit.

This is probably not what the Crown intended. If anything, knowing that there were real credibility issues with its own witnesses, the Crown was likely aiming for a manslaughter conviction.

But the Crown might not have done enough to stress just how the jury could reach that conclusion. At the same time, perhaps the jury was not focused on Mr. Stanley's motive to kill – that it was surely a wild coincidence that the gun happened to discharge just as it was pointed at the back of the head of someone who had, on Mr. Stanley's account, posed a threat to his son and wife.


All this is Monday morning quarterbacking. The hang-fire evidence, credibility issues and media glare arguably made this a messy case to prosecute. Looking forward, the Crown may attempt to argue that the evidence of hang fire should not have been admitted in the first place. Or it may claim that the use of peremptory challenges by the defence, at the jury empanelling stage, improperly excluded Indigenous jurors. I am not optimistic about the prospects of success for either argument. They are, however, makeable.

What cannot be argued on appeal is that the jury simply got it wrong. The Crown can only appeal on questions of law, not fact. We will never know precisely how the jury reached its verdict. But I would make this observation: This was not a trial about whether and when it is okay to shoot each other – either to protect ourselves, our families or our property. It was a trial about whether and how, on a remote farm in Saskatchewan, a gun malfunctioned on Aug. 9, 2016. As we reflect on the verdict, we should keep that point squarely in mind.
 
Good post, OBD. There sure has been a lack of details and information to make an informed decision on this case in the media, at large. I really don't understand why.

It took a bit of digging to ascertain that Boushie was in the back of a vehicle at the time and got shot in the head.

If Boushie or anyone was in my house - late at nite - maybe with a weapon - well - that's obviously self defense.

He was not, however.

There are clauses about detention of suspects (citizen arrest) in the Criminal Code - where you can use "reasonable" force to detain the suspects until the police arrive. How was shooting Bouchie in the head "reasonable" under those circumstances? I was always taught not to point the gun at anything I did not want to kill or maim - whether or not you believe the "hang-fire" excuse. Was Bouchie in immediate risk of flight? Wouldn't some other method of restraint be more "reasonable"?

How is it that Stanley did not get at least manslaughter? Why is it that these details are not discussed in the media?
 
I don't think detention or citizens arrest would have come into play here as I believe that it was stated that Bouchie had 3 or 4 other individuals with him. Not a great situation to be placed in, not a clear situation to investigate or Try. Anyone know if the other individuals in the SUV got charged with anything-I don't believe Bouchie was there alone but I didn't see anything about their testimony?
 
The problem I am having is the Prime Minister is getting involved and implying that the decision by a jury was wrong in his opinion. He then advised the country and his Minister of same and she implied she agreed.
 
The problem I am having is the Prime Minister is getting involved and implying that the decision by a jury was wrong in his opinion. He then advised the country and his Minister of same and she implied she agreed.
Politicking at its worst!! Twelve people decided he wasn't guilty of anything in law. Nobody was there but the individuals-nobody is saying that nothing happened obviously something did in a very dangerous situation. The Prime Minister or any other Public official wading into it is just grandstanding (perhaps he needs another selfie). I doubt it will be appealed although they may try but it has to be a question of Law not facts. I'm sure the political pressure is very great for an appeal-we will have to wait on that but on that note I will bow out on this topic!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top